Bradley Michael Woodle alias Dr. Functional Fumble

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure treating digestive issues and IBS.

treating digestive issues and IBS

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“help patients every day who are struggling with Digestive Issues, Gut Health, Irritable Bowel Syndrome”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on IBS, SIBO and gut disorders

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autoimmune Disorders.

Autoimmune Disorders

Supports

High-quality evidence directly supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective disease-modifying therapy for autoimmune disorders is essentially absent. ^[6][7][11] A recent pragmatic randomized controlled trial found that 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal adjustments in adults with subclinical spinal pain modulated several stress and immune biomarkers (changes in IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, cortisol, and BDNF) compared with sham care, suggesting short-term immune-pathway modulation but not clinical benefit in autoimmune disease populations. ^{[2][3][9][12]} This is preliminary mechanistic evidence only and does not demonstrate improvement in autoimmune disease activity, flares, or long‑term outcomes in patients with diagnosed autoimmune conditions. Systematic review evidence on spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes concluded there is no clinical evidence to support claims that spinal manipulation prevents infectious diseases or improves disease-specific immune outcomes, although short-term changes in biomarkers were observed and their clinical relevance is unknown. ^[10] Major autoimmune disease trials and meta-analyses (e. g. , vitamin D and omega-3 supplementation for autoimmune disease risk reduction, mesenchymal stem cell transplantation for autoimmune rheumatic and bowel disease, biologic and targeted immunotherapies, CD40 ligand antagonists in Sjögren’s disease) focus on pharmacologic, nutritional, cellular, and vaccine-based interventions, not chiropractic manipulation, underscoring that current evidence-based strategies for autoimmune disease prevention and treatment are based on other modalities rather than chiropractic care. ^[1]

Contradicts

The systematic review of spinal manipulative therapy and immune outcomes explicitly found no clinical evidence supporting claims that spinal manipulation is efficacious or effective in changing immune system outcomes relevant to disease-specific endpoints, and recommended that efficacy claims not be made until further robust trials exist. ^{[2][3][6][7][10]} Consensus statements from chiropractic researchers similarly note that no valid clinical scientific evidence shows chiropractic care can meaningfully enhance immune function or reduce the risk of common infectious diseases, and emphasize that purported immune effects are untested hypotheses rather than established facts. ^[9][11][12] Clinical commentary on rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions highlights that there are no high‑quality studies demonstrating chiropractic is a safe or effective primary treatment for autoimmune joint disease; in fact, manipulation of inflamed joints may worsen symptoms and chiropractic does not affect the underlying autoimmunity. ^[4] Current autoimmune research and guidelines emphasize disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents, nutritional interventions, stem cell therapies, and appropriate vaccination, with no role for chiropractic manipulation as a disease-modifying therapy in standard care pathways, which contradicts any claim that chiropractic on its own can treat or control autoimmune disorders in an evidence-based way. ^[1][5]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that autoimmune disorders are chronic conditions driven by dysregulated immune responses, primarily managed with evidence-based pharmacologic therapies (e. ^[1] g. , conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs, biologics, targeted synthetic agents), lifestyle measures, appropriate vaccinations, and in select cases advanced interventions such as mesenchymal stem cell transplantation, vitamin D or omega-3 supplementation, or novel biologic agents targeting specific immune pathways. ^[5][10] Major guidelines and trials do not recommend chiropractic spinal manipulation as a disease-modifying treatment for autoimmune disorders. ^[2][9][12] Chiropractic may have a limited, adjunctive role for musculoskeletal pain, stiffness, or functional complaints in carefully selected patients, provided it is integrated with standard rheumatology or specialty care and avoids direct manipulation of acutely inflamed or unstable joints. However, there is no high-quality evidence that chiropractic care alters the underlying autoimmune process, reduces disease activity or flares, or prevents incident autoimmune disease. ^[6][11] Mainstream practice therefore views chiropractic, at best, as a complementary symptom-management modality rather than a core or curative treatment for autoimmune disorders.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autoimmune Disorders”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autoimmune disease

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Autism Spectrum.

Autism Spectrum

Supports

There is no high-quality evidence such as large randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, or major clinical guidelines showing that chiropractic treatment is effective for core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ^[2][6] Existing literature consists mainly of case reports, small case series, and one small randomized clinical trial comparing upper cervical versus full spine chiropractic techniques in autistic children, with subjective parent-reported improvements in behavior and Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist scores. ^[16] These studies suggest possible symptomatic improvements but are underpowered, lack rigorous controls, and do not establish causality or generalizable efficacy. Systematic reviews of chiropractic care in children and of chiropractic for neurodevelopmental disorders report that evidence for autism specifically is sparse and of low methodological quality, concluding that effectiveness cannot be determined. ^[15] A 2011 systematic review cited in a 2024 review of chiropractic care in children explicitly states that there is insufficient research to determine effectiveness of chiropractic care for treatment of autism in children. ^[13][14] Overall, current evidence provides only weak, low-quality support for any benefit, and no robust support for chiropractic as a treatment for ASD itself.

Contradicts

Systematic reviews of spinal manipulative therapy and chiropractic in pediatric conditions consistently find that health claims for pediatric chiropractic care, including for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, are supported only by low-level evidence and that there is insufficient research to determine effectiveness. ^{[7][13][14][15]} High-quality pediatric chiropractic reviews emphasize lack of substantive shift in the evidence base and caution against strong therapeutic claims. ^[6] Broader evidence-based reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autism conclude that evidence for interventions like chiropractic is inconclusive and insufficient to recommend them as effective treatments for ASD. Major ASD management literature and guidelines focus on behavioral, educational, speech-language, occupational, and parent-mediated interventions, and do not list chiropractic adjustment or spinal manipulation as recommended or evidence-based treatments for autism spectrum disorder. ^[1][2][16] The absence of chiropractic from guideline-driven care for neurodevelopmental disorders, combined with explicit findings of insufficient and low-quality evidence, contradicts any strong claim that chiropractic treatment is an established or proven therapy for ASD. ^[4]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific consensus is that autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental condition best managed with evidence-based behavioral, educational, speech-language, occupational, and parent-mediated interventions, sometimes supplemented by medications for co-occurring conditions such as irritability, anxiety, or ADHD. ^[1] Chiropractic treatment is not recognized as an evidence-based therapy for ASD in major guidelines or consensus statements, and it is generally not recommended as a primary or core treatment for autism. ^{[2][6][7][15]} Complementary approaches, including chiropractic, may be used by some families, but current evidence is considered insufficient, low quality, and not adequate to support claims of efficacy for core ASD symptoms. The mainstream position is that chiropractic care should not be presented as a proven treatment for autism, and if used at all, it should be considered experimental, discussed transparently with families, and not replace established, guideline-supported interventions. ^{[4][13][14][16]}

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Autism Spectrum”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Autism

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fertility & Infertility.

Fertility & Infertility

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fertility & Infertility”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Infertility

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Fibromyalgia Disorder.

Fibromyalgia Disorder

Supports

There is limited randomized trial evidence suggesting that spinal manipulation, delivered in a chiropractic-like manner and added to usual pharmacologic care, can improve pain and some fibromyalgia severity and functional scores versus sham or no manipulation in the short to medium term. A recent randomized, placebo-controlled three-arm trial in young/middle‑aged women with fibromyalgia found that adding spinal manipulation to pharmacologic treatment reduced pain scores and showed some improvements in fibromyalgia impact and functionality at 1–3 months compared with both a control group and a sham manipulation group, leading the authors to conclude spinal manipulation could be an effective adjunctive treatment for pain, disease severity, and functionality in this population. ^{[17][18][19][20]} Earlier small randomized work suggested that chiropractic management (spinal manipulation plus soft‑tissue therapy and stretching) improved cervical and lumbar range of motion, straight leg raise, and reported pain levels over a short 4‑week period in fibromyalgia patients, although this was a preliminary, small trial and the authors emphasized results were only clinically important within their sample. One trial in women with fibromyalgia showed that resistance training improved strength and fibromyalgia impact, and that adding chiropractic treatment mainly improved adherence and dropout rates while also facilitating greater improvements in some functionality domains, suggesting a potential supportive role of chiropractic care in maintaining engagement with effective exercise therapy.

Contradicts

Multiple systematic reviews and evidence overviews have assessed chiropractic spinal manipulation and other manual therapies for fibromyalgia and consistently judged the evidence to be weak, low quality, or inconclusive. ^[18] A systematic review of randomized clinical trials on chiropractic care for fibromyalgia identified only three small, methodologically poor trials and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest chiropractic care is effective for fibromyalgia and that current trial evidence is insufficient to support chiropractic as an effective treatment. ^[19] A broader evidence report on manual therapies, which included fibromyalgia, found inconclusive evidence in an unclear direction for spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia and summarized the existing systematic reviews as showing weak evidence of efficacy for chiropractic/manual/massage therapy and stating that trial evidence is insufficient to conclude that chiropractic is effective. An overview of systematic reviews on spinal manipulation for pain reported that, for fibromyalgia, the best available data fail to demonstrate that chiropractic spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain, again highlighting poor quality and low quantity of primary data. ^[20] A more recent systematic review focused on manual therapy for fibromyalgia concluded that, based on very low to moderate quality evidence, current data are inconclusive and insufficient to recommend manual therapy (including spinal and other manipulative techniques) for fibromyalgia, with only general osteopathic treatment achieving clinically relevant pain improvement compared with control in one study. Furthermore, a well‑designed sham‑controlled randomized trial of osteopathic manipulation—a related manual therapy often sought by the same patient population—found no benefit over sham treatment on pain, fatigue, functioning, or quality of life, and explicitly stated that these findings do not support the use of osteopathy in fibromyalgia, indirectly reinforcing concerns that manual manipulative approaches may not provide meaningful benefit beyond placebo. ^[17] Overall, the bulk of higher‑level evidence indicates that any positive findings from individual chiropractic or spinal manipulation trials are not robust enough to overturn the prevailing view of limited or uncertain efficacy in fibromyalgia.

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion, as reflected in major evidence syntheses and clinical guidance, is that fibromyalgia management should focus on multimodal approaches with the strongest evidence base, including graded aerobic and resistance exercise, cognitive‑behavioral and other psychological therapies, patient education, and selected pharmacologic options such as certain antidepressants and anticonvulsants, rather than relying on chiropractic or spinal manipulation as primary treatment. Manual therapies, including chiropractic manipulation, may be used by some patients as adjunctive or supportive modalities, but current systematic reviews and evidence reports classify the evidence for chiropractic and spinal manipulation in fibromyalgia as weak, low quality, and inconclusive, and do not recommend these interventions as core or first‑line therapies. ^[18][19][20] Guidelines and expert reviews typically emphasize that while individual patients might report short‑term symptomatic relief from manipulative or manual therapies, such approaches should be considered optional add‑ons, used cautiously, and not promoted as proven disease‑modifying treatments for fibromyalgia given the lack of consistent, high‑quality randomized trial data demonstrating durable benefit over credible sham or active comparators. ^[17]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Fibromyalgia Disorder”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Menopause.

Menopause

Supports

High-quality evidence specifically supporting chiropractic treatment as an effective therapy for menopause or menopausal symptoms is essentially absent. A focused review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia concluded that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic care for menopausal symptoms and insomnia, and that existing data are limited and of poor quality.^[2] Major menopause position statements summarizing randomized and observational data on nonhormonal therapies state that there have been no clinical trials showing benefit of chiropractic interventions for vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats) and do not recommend chiropractic for these indications.^[7][11] No RCTs or meta-analyses demonstrate that spinal manipulation or standard chiropractic protocols reliably improve vasomotor symptoms, urogenital symptoms, or other core menopausal complaints beyond placebo. There is some evidence that manual therapies or body-based treatments (for example, craniofacial massage) can modestly improve mental health and some menopausal symptom scores in small RCTs, but these are not standard chiropractic spinal manipulation and cannot be generalized to chiropractic as a treatment for menopause.^[15]

Contradicts

A dedicated review of chiropractic intervention for postmenopausal climacteric symptoms and insomnia identified only three small studies and concluded that there is no evidence supporting chiropractic as an effective complementary therapy for menopausal symptoms or insomnia; large epidemiologic surveys also showed no benefit.^[2] Evidence-based menopause reviews and position statements report that complementary therapies such as chiropractic manipulation do not perform better than placebo for menopausal symptoms when tested in quality blinded randomized trials, and they explicitly state that there are no supporting quality data for chiropractic manipulation in the treatment of menopause.^[7][11] A recent North American menopause guideline on nonhormone therapies notes that there are no clinical trials of chiropractic interventions for vasomotor symptoms and finds no association between chiropractic use and improvement in hot flashes in survey data, concluding that chiropractic interventions are not recommended for vasomotor symptom management.^[7] Overall, the available literature and guideline assessments characterize the evidence for chiropractic in menopause as lacking, methodologically weak, and not demonstrating clinically meaningful benefit over placebo. The index guideline papers provided by the user deal with hypertension, nutrition support, headache, and other topics, and illustrate that guideline-based management of chronic conditions relies on treatments backed by robust RCTs and systematic reviews, which is not the case for chiropractic in menopause.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that chiropractic care is not an evidence-based treatment for menopause itself or for key menopausal symptoms such as vasomotor symptoms, urogenital atrophy, or overall climacteric syndrome. Major menopause societies and evidence-based reviews recommend established therapies—such as menopausal hormone therapy where appropriate, and selected nonhormonal pharmacologic or behavioral interventions—for symptom control, and they either do not mention chiropractic at all or explicitly state that chiropractic interventions are not recommended due to lack of supporting clinical trial evidence and absence of demonstrated benefit beyond placebo.^[7][11] Chiropractic treatment may have a role for clearly musculoskeletal complaints (for example, low back pain) in peri- or postmenopausal women, but this is distinct from treating menopause or its systemic symptoms. Consequently, mainstream practice considers chiropractic manipulation an unproven and non-recommended therapy for menopause, and women are generally advised to use treatments with demonstrated efficacy and safety profiles instead.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Menopause”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

See every doc bro who says they can treat or advise on Menopause

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to advertise Food Sensitivity Testing for autoimmune conditions as within their scope of practice.

Food Sensitivity Testing for autoimmune conditions

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Food Sensitivity Testing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Functional Medicine.

Functional Medicine

Supports

There is moderate-quality evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy is about as effective as other recommended therapies (such as standard medical care and physical therapy) for short‑term pain relief and small improvements in function in adults with chronic low back pain.^[12][14] Some randomized controlled trials show clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability with structured courses of chiropractic spinal manipulation (around 12 sessions over 6 weeks) in chronic non‑specific low back pain, with benefits sustained up to 52 weeks.^{[2][7][11][12][14]} A Cochrane review and other systematic reviews indicate that for acute and subacute low back pain, combined chiropractic interventions can slightly improve pain and disability in the short and medium term compared with other treatments, though long‑term differences are minimal.^{[8][12][14][16]} Overall, high‑quality evidence supports chiropractic care as a reasonable option for musculoskeletal spinal pain (especially low back pain), broadly comparable to other conservative treatments.^[5][12][14] contradicts

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Functional Medicine”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Food Sensitivity Testing.

Food Sensitivity Testing

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Food Sensitivity Testing”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Nutritional Programs.

Nutritional Programs

Supports

There is substantial high-quality evidence that structured nutritional programs and counseling, when delivered by appropriately trained professionals (typically registered dietitians, physicians, or multidisciplinary teams), can improve outcomes in many conditions (e. ^{[5][6][29][30][32]} g. , inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, pediatric undernutrition), but these data are not specific to chiropractors as the providers of such programs. ^[3] Large guidelines on clinical nutrition (e. ^[2] g. , ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN) emphasize that individualized nutrition assessment, planning, and monitoring are effective components of medical care and can be protocolized in “nutritional programs. ” Randomized controlled trials and systematic programs of nutritional counseling show benefits in contexts like undernourished children, older adults with cancer, and others, again demonstrating that structured nutrition programs themselves can be effective parts of evidence-based care. ^[1] This indirectly supports the limited idea that if chiropractors adhere to the same evidence-based nutrition principles and collaborate appropriately, the nutrition advice they deliver could be beneficial, but this is extrapolated from general nutrition science rather than chiropractic-specific trials. ^[31]

Contradicts

There is almost no high-quality evidence (RCTs, systematic reviews, or major guidelines) demonstrating that chiropractic-specific nutritional programs, as uniquely designed or branded by chiropractors, provide superior outcomes compared with standard evidence-based nutrition care delivered by dietitians or physicians. ^[6][30] An RCT in patients with high-normal or stage I hypertension found that adding chiropractic spinal manipulation to a dietary modification program did not improve blood pressure more than the dietary program alone, indicating no added value of the chiropractic component to the nutritional intervention. ^[29][31][32] Major nutrition guidelines (ASPEN-FELANPE, ESPEN, and parenteral nutrition appropriateness criteria) specify assessment, indications, and monitoring strategies but do not identify chiropractors as core providers of medical nutrition therapy or as having a distinct therapeutic nutritional approach. ^[2][3][5] Hypertension management guidelines emphasize lifestyle and dietary measures but do not call for chiropractor-directed nutritional programs; instead, they highlight physician- or team-based care using established dietary patterns (e. g. , DASH, sodium restriction) within a broader cardiovascular risk framework. Across major guideline documents provided (nutrition, hypertension, parenteral nutrition, transfusion, headache, pericarditis), chiropractors are not listed as recognized prescribers or managers of formal nutritional therapy, and there is no endorsement of chiropractic-branded nutrition programs as a distinct evidence-based modality. ^[1][4][7][8]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and nutrition science strongly supports structured, evidence-based nutritional interventions, but considers them within the scope of clinicians trained in clinical nutrition (dietitians, physicians, specialist nurses, and multidisciplinary teams) and guided by established nutrition and disease-specific guidelines. ^{[1][2][3][6][30]} These guidelines focus on indications such as malnutrition, gastrointestinal disease, cancer, and critical illness, and emphasize standardized assessment (e. g. , nutritional risk scores), appropriate route of feeding (oral, enteral, parenteral), and evidence-based dietary patterns, not chiropractor-specific nutritional philosophies or supplements. ^[5] Chiropractors may provide general lifestyle and dietary advice within their scope in some jurisdictions, but this is viewed as adjunctive health promotion rather than as a uniquely therapeutic “chiropractic nutritional program,” and major guidelines do not assign them a primary role in clinical nutrition management. ^[29][31] Therefore, the mainstream position is that nutrition programs can be effective, but their effectiveness does not depend on being delivered by chiropractors, and claims that chiropractic-designed nutritional programs have special or superior therapeutic effects are not supported by high-quality evidence. ^[32]

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Nutritional Programs”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Pregnancy Chiropractic Care.

Pregnancy Chiropractic Care

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Pregnancy Chiropractic Care”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Shockwave Therapy.

Shockwave Therapy

Supports

There is peer-reviewed evidence that extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) can improve pain and function for some musculoskeletal conditions, especially plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, but this is condition-specific rather than a general endorsement of chiropractic treatment. ^{[7][33][34][35]} Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have found benefits in chronic low back pain, although the evidence is heterogeneous and often short-term. ^[6][36] Some more recent reviews also report positive effects in hip/pelvic tendinopathies and certain post-rehabilitation settings, but these are still specific indications with variable certainty.

Contradicts

The claim is too vague to be supported as stated, because it does not specify a diagnosis, outcome, shockwave modality, or whether the chiropractor is using ESWT as an adjunct to evidence-based care. ^{[1][6][34][35]} Several reviews find mixed or low-certainty evidence for conditions commonly treated in chiropractic settings, and for some problems the effect is negligible or inconsistent. ^[33][36] The strongest evidence base is not for “chiropractor treatment” in general, but for ESWT in selected orthopedic indications; some guideline and payer documents still describe evidence as insufficient for many uses outside a narrow set of approved or better-studied conditions. ^[4]

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical view: shockwave therapy is an evidence-based option for a limited set of musculoskeletal conditions, most consistently plantar fasciitis and some tendinopathies, and it may help some cases of chronic low back pain, but the overall evidence is condition-specific and not enough to support a broad claim that chiropractic shockwave treatment is generally effective. ^{[1][4][6][7][33][34][35][36]} It is best viewed as an adjunctive modality with variable quality of evidence, not a universal chiropractic treatment.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Shockwave Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Cold Laser Therapy

Supports

High-intensity or class IV laser therapy (HILT) has been studied in multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as neck and low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, and other orthopedic pain conditions. ^{[7][37][38][39][40]} These reviews generally find that class IV/HILT can reduce pain and improve function compared with placebo or conservative therapy, though effect sizes are modest and evidence quality is often rated low to moderate. ^[6] Several RCTs show that class IV laser used as an adjunct to exercise or physiotherapy yields better pain and disability outcomes than control or placebo laser. There are also trials of class IV laser in specific conditions (e. g. , plantar fasciitis, post‑operative recovery, veterinary orthopedic surgery) showing some improvement in pain or gait compared with placebo. Overall, for short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in MSDs, there is some supportive evidence for class IV laser therapy as a complementary modality.

Contradicts

The available evidence for class IV cold laser therapy is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols (different wavelengths, power, dosing, and treatment schedules), and high or unclear risk of bias in many trials. ^[37][39][40] Systematic reviews often rate the overall quality of evidence as low or very low, meaning that confidence in the effect estimates is limited and future, better-designed studies could substantially change current conclusions. ^[6][38] Some RCTs and reviews comparing high‑intensity (class IV) laser with low‑level laser or other conservative treatments find no clear superiority of one modality over another, suggesting that any benefit may be comparable to other noninvasive adjuncts rather than uniquely large. Evidence is concentrated on short‑term symptom relief in selected musculoskeletal conditions; there is little robust data on long‑term outcomes, prevention of disease progression, or on many other conditions sometimes promoted in chiropractic or influencer marketing. There are no high‑quality major guidelines among the provided index papers that recommend class IV cold laser as standard therapy for any condition. The provided guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension‑type headache, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis do not mention or endorse class IV cold laser therapy for those conditions. ^{[2][3][4][5][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion views class IV cold (high‑intensity) laser therapy as an experimental or adjunctive treatment for certain musculoskeletal pain conditions rather than a core, first‑line therapy. ^{[37][38][39][40]} It may be considered by some physical medicine, rehabilitation, or pain practitioners as a complementary modality when standard evidence‑based treatments (e. ^[1][5] g. , exercise therapy, pharmacologic pain management, manual therapy) are insufficient or as part of multi‑modal care. However, because most evidence comes from small, heterogeneous trials with low to moderate quality and high risk of bias, major general medical, cardiology, neurology, nutrition, and transfusion guidelines among the index papers do not include class IV cold laser therapy in their recommended treatment algorithms for their respective conditions. ^[2][4][6][7] Current evidence does not support broad claims that class IV cold laser therapy provided by chiropractors is highly effective across many diseases; its plausible role is limited, condition‑specific, and adjunctive, pending more rigorous RCTs and guideline‑level endorsement.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Cold Laser Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Disc Decompression Therapy.

Disc Decompression Therapy

Supports

There is some randomized controlled trial evidence that non-surgical spinal decompression therapy can improve pain, function, and related outcomes in lumbar radiculopathy and disc herniation, but the evidence base is small and heterogeneous. A 2022 randomized controlled trial in lumbar radiculopathy found that adding non-surgical spinal decompression to routine physical therapy produced greater improvements in pain, lumbar range of motion, back muscle endurance, disability, and certain quality-of-life domains compared with physical therapy alone over 4 weeks.^[17] Another randomized controlled trial in patients with lumbar radiculopathy reported that decompression therapy improved walking duration more than a similar program without decompression.^[16] Prospective and clinical trial data suggest non-surgical spinal decompression can reduce pain and may increase disc height, with MRI evidence of disc-height restoration, although these studies call for larger randomized trials to confirm efficacy.^[4][10] For chiropractic care more broadly (especially spinal manipulation) in lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy, multiple randomized trials and systematic reviews summarized in an evidence-based chiropractic review and in a thesis indicate that spinal manipulation can reduce pain and improve function with moderate-quality evidence and a good safety profile.^[2][9] Observational and case-report data support that chiropractic mechanical-force, manually assisted adjusting procedures may be effectively implemented in some lumbar disc disorder cases.^[15] Non-operative management reviews and guidelines list manipulation by chiropractors among conservative options that may help symptomatic lumbar disc herniations when there is no progressive neurologic deficit or cauda equina syndrome.^[14]

Contradicts

High-quality reviews and critical appraisals highlight that the scientific literature for non-surgical spinal decompression therapy is very limited, with only one small randomized trial and several lower-quality efficacy studies, and overall questionable study quality.^[3][19] These analyses conclude that there is insufficient evidence to warrant routine use of non-surgical spinal decompression, especially given the availability of less expensive conservative treatments with stronger evidence such as exercise therapy, standard traction, manual therapy, and usual medical care.^[3][19] A randomized controlled trial comparing DRX9000 non-surgical decompression with conventional motorized traction in lumbar disc herniation found that both were effective, but decompression was not superior to standard traction in pain, function, depression, or quality of life, suggesting little unique benefit of proprietary decompression devices over simpler traction modalities.^[5] Contemporary reviews of chiropractic evidence find only inconsistent, weak evidence that chiropractic interventions specifically for disc herniation provide clinically important benefits beyond general low back pain management, and stress that no strong evidence supports spinal decompression devices as uniquely effective.^[2] Major narrative and guideline-style reviews of non-operative management of lumbar disc herniation emphasize medications, physical therapy, general manipulation, and epidural steroid injections, and typically do not recommend specialized non-surgical decompression devices as a standard first-line therapy.^[12][14] Overall, there are no large, high-quality systematic reviews or major clinical guidelines that endorse chiropractor-delivered disc decompression therapy as a proven, superior treatment for disc herniation or radiculopathy, and existing evidence is short-term, device-specific, and often industry-linked, which weakens confidence in broad efficacy claims.^[3][19]

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that lumbar disc herniation and radiculopathy should usually be managed initially with conservative care including analgesics (especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), physical therapy, activity modification, and possibly spinal manipulation or standard traction, reserving surgery for cauda equina syndrome, progressive neurologic deficits, or failure of conservative measures over several weeks.^[12][14] Chiropractic spinal manipulation is generally viewed as one of several conservative options that can reduce pain and improve function in low back disorders, including some disc herniation cases, but it is not considered uniquely curative and should be integrated into multidisciplinary care rather than used as an exclusive treatment.^[2][9][14] Non-surgical spinal decompression therapy (as marketed decompression/traction devices often used by chiropractors) is regarded as an experimental or adjunctive modality with limited, short-term evidence of benefit; current literature and critical reviews state that there is insufficient high-quality evidence to justify its routine use or to support claims that it is superior to standard traction, exercise therapy, or other established conservative treatments.^[3][5][19] Major guidelines and evidence-based reviews therefore do not endorse chiropractor disc decompression therapy as a standard-of-care or high-evidence intervention; instead, they emphasize comprehensive conservative management and careful patient selection, with decompression devices, if used at all, considered optional and

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Disc Decompression Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Sports Injury Treatment.

Sports Injury Treatment

Supports

High-quality evidence specific to chiropractic treatment of sports injuries is limited but includes some randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. A randomized controlled trial in semi-elite Australian Rules footballers found that adding a sports chiropractic manual therapy program (spinal and extremity manipulation/mobilization plus soft-tissue work) to standard sports medicine care significantly reduced primary lower-limb muscle strains and weeks missed due to non-contact knee injuries compared with standard care alone, although effects on hamstring and knee injury incidence narrowly missed conventional statistical significance thresholds. ^[45] A systematic review of randomized and controlled clinical trials on chiropractic manipulation in sports reported that a minority of low-quality trials suggested benefit of chiropractic for sports injury treatment or rehabilitation (for example, faster recovery from ankle inversion sprain or low-back pain), indicating possible short-term improvements in pain and rehabilitation time, though methods were heterogeneous and often biased. ^[47] The more recent narrative/systematic reviews of chiropractic in sports, including those focusing on spinal manipulation and performance, note some individual trials where chiropractic care was associated with improved performance tests or injury rehabilitation metrics in athletes, but they emphasize that these findings are exploratory and based on small samples and short follow-up. ^[46] Overall, there is some RCT-level evidence that sports chiropractic manual therapy can be a helpful adjunct within a multidisciplinary program for certain musculoskeletal sports injuries, particularly lower-limb strains, but the quality and consistency of this supportive evidence are modest. ^[48]

Contradicts

Several systematic reviews of chiropractic or spinal manipulative therapy in athletes conclude that the evidence base is sparse and methodologically weak, and that the therapeutic value for prevention or treatment of sports injuries remains uncertain. ^[48] One systematic review of controlled clinical trials on chiropractic for prevention or treatment of sports injuries found only a few small RCTs and controlled trials, with poor Jadad scores; across these, some trials showed no difference versus control for injury treatment, and one trial reported no benefit for injury prevention, leading the authors to state that firm conclusions in favor of chiropractic could not be drawn. ^[47] A high-quality systematic review examining spinal manipulative therapy and sports performance (including athlete populations) found that, in asymptomatic adults, spinal manipulation generally did not improve performance-related outcomes compared with sham or other interventions; where small positive immediate effects were reported (e. ^[45][46] g. , free-throw accuracy), their clinical relevance was unclear and results were inconsistent. Other RCTs in healthy athletes have reported neutral or even slightly negative acute performance effects after pre-exercise spinal manipulation, with no meaningful advantage over sham treatment. Taken together, these reviews and trials contradict strong claims that chiropractic treatment alone is a proven, broadly effective therapy for sports injuries or performance enhancement, and highlight that benefits, when present, are modest, condition-specific, and often embedded within larger multidisciplinary care rather than being stand-alone effects attributable solely to chiropractic manipulation.

Mainstream view

Mainstream sports medicine views chiropractic as one of several manual-therapy approaches that can be integrated into multidisciplinary management of musculoskeletal sports injuries, but not as a primary or universally effective treatment. ^[48] Major sports medicine and orthopedic guidelines for common sports injuries (e. g. , ankle sprain, hamstring strain, knee ligament or cartilage injury, shoulder injury) typically emphasize accurate diagnosis, graded exercise-based rehabilitation, neuromuscular training and warm-up programs, load management, and, where appropriate, pharmacologic or surgical interventions; chiropractic or spinal manipulation is usually mentioned, if at all, as an optional adjunct for spinal or some peripheral joint pain rather than a core evidence-based treatment for sports injuries. ^[46] Current evidence is considered insufficient to recommend routine chiropractic manipulation as a stand-alone therapy for either prevention or treatment of most sports injuries, and performance-enhancement claims are regarded as unproven. ^[45][47] The mainstream position is that chiropractic care may be reasonable as part of individualized, multimodal care for selected athletes with musculoskeletal pain or dysfunction, provided it is integrated with established rehabilitation and injury-prevention strategies, but it should not replace guideline-recommended sports medicine assessment and management.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Sports Injury Treatment”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Class IV Cold Laser Therapy within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Class IV Cold Laser Therapy

Supports

High-intensity or class IV laser therapy (HILT) has been studied in multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews for musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) such as neck and low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, plantar fasciitis, and other orthopedic pain conditions. ^{[7][37][38][39][40]} These reviews generally find that class IV/HILT can reduce pain and improve function compared with placebo or conservative therapy, though effect sizes are modest and evidence quality is often rated low to moderate. ^[6] Several RCTs show that class IV laser used as an adjunct to exercise or physiotherapy yields better pain and disability outcomes than control or placebo laser. There are also trials of class IV laser in specific conditions (e. g. , plantar fasciitis, post‑operative recovery, veterinary orthopedic surgery) showing some improvement in pain or gait compared with placebo. Overall, for short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in MSDs, there is some supportive evidence for class IV laser therapy as a complementary modality.

Contradicts

The available evidence for class IV cold laser therapy is limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous protocols (different wavelengths, power, dosing, and treatment schedules), and high or unclear risk of bias in many trials. ^[37][39][40] Systematic reviews often rate the overall quality of evidence as low or very low, meaning that confidence in the effect estimates is limited and future, better-designed studies could substantially change current conclusions. ^[6][38] Some RCTs and reviews comparing high‑intensity (class IV) laser with low‑level laser or other conservative treatments find no clear superiority of one modality over another, suggesting that any benefit may be comparable to other noninvasive adjuncts rather than uniquely large. Evidence is concentrated on short‑term symptom relief in selected musculoskeletal conditions; there is little robust data on long‑term outcomes, prevention of disease progression, or on many other conditions sometimes promoted in chiropractic or influencer marketing. There are no high‑quality major guidelines among the provided index papers that recommend class IV cold laser as standard therapy for any condition. The provided guidelines on hypertension, clinical nutrition, tension‑type headache, parenteral nutrition, transfusion therapy, and pericarditis do not mention or endorse class IV cold laser therapy for those conditions. ^{[2][3][4][5][7][8]}

Mainstream view

Mainstream medical and scientific opinion views class IV cold (high‑intensity) laser therapy as an experimental or adjunctive treatment for certain musculoskeletal pain conditions rather than a core, first‑line therapy. ^{[37][38][39][40]} It may be considered by some physical medicine, rehabilitation, or pain practitioners as a complementary modality when standard evidence‑based treatments (e. ^[1][5] g. , exercise therapy, pharmacologic pain management, manual therapy) are insufficient or as part of multi‑modal care. However, because most evidence comes from small, heterogeneous trials with low to moderate quality and high risk of bias, major general medical, cardiology, neurology, nutrition, and transfusion guidelines among the index papers do not include class IV cold laser therapy in their recommended treatment algorithms for their respective conditions. ^[2][4][6][7] Current evidence does not support broad claims that class IV cold laser therapy provided by chiropractors is highly effective across many diseases; its plausible role is limited, condition‑specific, and adjunctive, pending more rigorous RCTs and guideline‑level endorsement.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Class IV Cold Laser Therapy”

Rule: K.S.A. §65-2871 (Kansas Healing Arts Act)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not approved to offer Dry Needling within a Chiropractor scope of practice under Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic).

Dry Needling

Supports

High-quality evidence, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, shows that dry needling of myofascial trigger points can reduce pain and improve short‑term function in conditions such as myofascial pain syndrome, neck pain, and low back pain. ^{[6][50][51][53]} Multiple RCTs demonstrate that dry needling is more effective than sham dry needling or no intervention for reducing pain and improving quality of life in myofascial pain syndrome and trigger‑point related pain, typically over short- to medium-term follow‑up (days to a few months). A systematic review used to inform a WHO guideline on non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain concluded that needling therapies (including dry needling) can provide pain relief compared with control interventions, although effects are generally modest and short term. ^[1][49][52] Additional systematic reviews and RCTs (outside the index list but within current academic literature) consistently report that dry needling improves pain, pressure pain thresholds, and sometimes range of motion over short-term follow-up in myofascial trigger point–related conditions and low back pain. ^[4] This body of evidence supports the general efficacy of dry needling as a physical/needling therapy when performed by trained practitioners. ^[5][7]

Contradicts

The available evidence does not specifically support a unique benefit of chiropractic delivery of dry needling versus delivery by other trained providers (eg, physical therapists or physicians); most trials and reviews evaluate dry needling as a technique, not tied to a specific profession. ^[6][52] There is also important evidence that the benefit of dry needling is mainly short term, with insufficient or inconsistent evidence for durable long-term outcomes beyond several months. Some systematic reviews highlight limited methodological quality, small sample sizes, heterogeneity of techniques, and a high risk of bias, which weaken confidence in strong claims of efficacy, especially for chronic or complex pain conditions. In guidance used by WHO for chronic primary low back pain, needling therapies (including dry needling) are considered options with modest benefits and potential harms, not core first‑line interventions; this constrains strong claims that dry needling is a primary or superior treatment for such conditions. ^[49][50] Furthermore, mainstream medical coverage and some payer policies still classify dry needling as investigational or not medically necessary for myofascial pain, reflecting ongoing uncertainty and the need for more robust evidence. ^[51][53] Overall, there is no high‑quality evidence that chiropractic dry needling is more effective than other needling or non‑needling physical therapies, and broad, strongly positive claims about its efficacy or uniqueness are not supported.

Mainstream view

The mainstream medical and scientific position is that dry needling is one of several physical interventions that can provide short‑term pain relief and functional improvement in myofascial trigger point–related pain and some musculoskeletal conditions, when performed by appropriately trained clinicians. ^{[5][50][51][52][53]} Systematic reviews and guideline‑informing evidence characterize dry needling as having modest, mainly short‑term benefits, with limited data on long‑term effectiveness, disability outcomes, and comparative superiority over other conservative treatments. ^[1] Major guidelines for chronic primary low back pain and tension‑type headache do not place dry needling as a core first‑line therapy; instead, they emphasize exercise, education, psychological therapies, and multi‑modal conservative management, with needling therapies considered adjunct or optional interventions when benefits, risks, and patient preferences are carefully weighed. ^{[2][4][7][49]} Regarding provider type, mainstream medicine treats dry needling as a technique that can be used by various trained professionals (eg, physical therapists, physicians, some chiropractors) under local regulatory frameworks, rather than a treatment uniquely associated with chiropractic practice. Scope‑of‑practice and credentialing for chiropractors performing dry needling are determined by regional regulations and professional standards, not by strong evidence that chiropractors deliver superior outcomes.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Dry Needling”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Custom Orthotics.

Custom Orthotics

Supports

No peer-reviewed index paper provided in the prompt addresses chiropractor treatment of custom orthotics, and the cited guidelines focus on hypertension, nutrition, headache, transfusion, and pericarditis rather than foot orthotics or chiropractic care . ^{[2][4][5][6][7][8]} In the broader medical literature, custom foot orthoses can help some mechanical foot and lower-limb conditions, but that evidence concerns podiatric/orthotic interventions, not chiropractic treatment of the orthoses themselves.

Contradicts

The claim is not a standard medical treatment concept: chiropractors may assess gait or musculoskeletal alignment, but custom orthotics are not typically treated by chiropractic manipulation. ^[4] Evidence for chiropractic care improving outcomes specifically from custom orthotics is lacking, and there are no high-quality trials or major guidelines supporting chiropractic treatment as a therapy for orthotics. ^[2][6][7] The index papers do not provide support for this claim .

Mainstream view

Mainstream medicine does not recognize chiropractors as providing evidence-based treatment for custom orthotics. ^[1] Custom orthotics are usually prescribed, fitted, or adjusted within podiatry, orthopedics, or prosthetics/orthotics services, while chiropractic care may sometimes be used for musculoskeletal pain but has no established role in treating orthotics themselves. Overall, the claim is unsupported and likely reflects a category error rather than a medically recognized intervention.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Custom Orthotics”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)

Bradley Michael Woodle is not licensed or approved by Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Chiropractic) to diagnose, treat, or cure Wellness & Preventative Care.

Wellness & Preventative Care

No specific health claims of theirs were cross-checked against the literature.

In their own wordsView sourceArchived copy

“Wellness & Preventative Care”

Rule: K.S.A. 65-2871(a)